No need to shout; and only use the spam tag for actually spammers please.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 17:33

2

The edits were made by a moderator, so there is something more going on here.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 17:34

1

But is this the right place for this request? Could somebody help?
–
lu4242Mar 1 '13 at 17:36

7

To be fair your answer was June 2011 and you are supposed to have copied it from a post with /2012/02/ in the URL. Seems unlikely unless you have a time machine.
–
Martin SmithMar 1 '13 at 17:37

1

Just look on markmail.org with the words myfaces and lu4242 and you'll see I'm the real expert.
–
lu4242Mar 1 '13 at 17:37

2

@lu4242: This is the right place, and I you may have a case, just trying to figure out what is going on here.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 17:38

@MartinSmith Look at the revision history. A substantial portion of that answer was added months after 02/2012.
–
Bill the LizardMar 1 '13 at 17:39

2

@BilltheLizard But the edit changes the entirety of the post to a quote, indicating none of the content is original. If only a few edits were accredited to this other blog post, the citation should indicate that.
–
ServyMar 1 '13 at 17:40

@MartinSmith Ah, you're right. I misinterpreted the diff as meaning that everything afterUPDATE MAY 2012: was added on that day. I'll fix this, then get my eyes checked.
–
Bill the LizardMar 1 '13 at 17:44

I must say that a few moments paying attention to the dates would have made it clear the post could never have been copied from that blog. The rest of that site is (to me) an obvious ad mill.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 17:54

But Kev, you didn't change the SO answer to state that it was pulled from lu4242's blog, you stated that it was pulled from kumarnvm's blog. If you had cited lu4242's blog it wouldn't really be [much of] a problem.
–
ServyMar 1 '13 at 17:58

1

@Servy - as I said, it wasn't clear at that time and when he/she flagged the answer that the work originally came from his blog. The answer was flagged as a copy-paste from (what we now know) the imposter site.
–
KevMar 1 '13 at 18:00

4

@Servy: Actually, he did provide his own links at the very bottom of his answer... where most readers wouldn't have looked.
–
BoltClock's a UnicornMar 1 '13 at 18:01

1

I put the links on the top, so now I hope it will not be misunderstanding.
–
lu4242Mar 1 '13 at 18:01

@Servy and in my defence what BoltClock just said.
–
KevMar 1 '13 at 18:01

@MartijnPieters - we handle a lot of flags each day (2.2k so far today)....mistakes happen, we're only human but the problem is now resolved which is the important thing.
–
KevMar 1 '13 at 18:04

2

@Kev: Of course! I understand how the error happened. It's just that your post has a hint of a suggestion the OP could have prevented the problem by linking to their own blog post.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 18:06

Is it possible that the owner of the blog is in fact that person?
–
ServyMar 1 '13 at 17:47

@Servy That has to be investigated, but I think that the right people to do so are the SE staff.
–
yo'Mar 1 '13 at 17:48

2

@Servy: No, BalusC is a Dutch guy living in the Dutch Antilles. His name is not Kumar.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 17:49

@Servy: The third blog entry does say This is a copy of my answer on stackoverflow.
–
David RobinsonMar 1 '13 at 17:49

17

Damn, I wish I was moderator for the entire Internet.
–
Bill the LizardMar 1 '13 at 17:49

@MartijnPieters Because someone not named Kumar could never have a blog alias of "Kumar"...
–
ServyMar 1 '13 at 17:49

1

@Martijn Pieters: For all we know his parrot Chichiray may be some obscure translation of the name Kumar, so it may very well be his parrot running that blog. You know how parrots love copying humans!
–
BoltClock's a UnicornMar 1 '13 at 17:50

@tohecz: I am more and more convinced that this site is copying individual blog posts, not from SO itself. That's a difficult edge-case, the blog authors themselves could certainly make a compelling DMCA case against that site via Blogspot though.
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 18:28

@MartijnPieters Still, it steals contents of SO/SE, too, even when indirectly. (Which arises a question: If I wanted to reblog my answer from SE, do I have to follow the contribution rules, too?)
–
yo'Mar 1 '13 at 18:33

@tohecz: You license your text to SO under the CC-wiki license. You are still the author and can do with it as you see fit. It could be that SE can make a case under that license, but the copies are not verbatim (but they are verbatim from those blog posts).
–
Martijn PietersMar 1 '13 at 18:35

While the OP may have a claim that some other blog "stole" his content, that's not what this meta post is about. A moderator is claiming that the OP is the one who copied the content from that blog post, and cites that blog as the source. The post should be edited to indicate that it is the original source of the content.
–
ServyMar 1 '13 at 17:44

@Servy Yes, you are right. But this has to be done too, doesn't it?
–
yo'Mar 1 '13 at 17:45

4

Yes, but it's not what this post is about, so it's not an answer to this question. It's also most likely of much lower importance to the OP. What's on some blog full of plagiarized content is not something too many people care about, but when the original author is accused of copying from someone when he never did, that's...likely frustrating.
–
ServyMar 1 '13 at 17:46

3

Yes, that's the case. This guy Kumar is claiming that the answer comes from his blog, but its site is just a copy of many post of real people. The answer comes from my blog.
–
lu4242Mar 1 '13 at 17:53